Why Supreme Court’s curative petition relief for Delhi Metro is significant

Subject: Polity

Section: Judiciary

Context:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) will not have to pay nearly Rs 8,000 crore to the Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL).

More on news:

The ruling overturned the Supreme Court’s September 2021 judgment that upheld the arbitral award.
The court has now exercised its “extraordinary powers” in a curative writ petition to correct a “fundamental error” in its judgment.

History of the case

In 2008, the DMRC entered into a public-private partnership with DAMEPL, a consortium led by Reliance Infrastructure Ltd, for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Delhi Airport Metro Express.
While DMRC acquired the land and bore the cost of construction, the consortium was to design, install, and commission the railway systems in two years.
Until 2038, DAMEPL was to maintain the line and manage its operations, while paying a “concession fee” to DMRC.
Before operations were finally handed over to DMRC in June 2013, DAMEPL and DMRC made a joint application before the Commissioner of Metro Railway Safety for reopening the line.
While the line started functioning again, the government and Reliance began a battle before an arbitration tribunal for losses due to cancellation of the agreement.

Curative jurisdiction:

Curative, an extraordinary special jurisdiction carved out by the Supreme Court under its inherent power vide Article 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India.
A curative writ petition as a layer of appeal against a Supreme Court decision is not prescribed in the Constitution.
It is a judicial innovation, designed for correcting “grave injustices” in a ruling of the country’s top court.
The SC first articulated the concept of a curative writ in Rupa Ashok Hurra vs Ashok Hurra (2002).
If there was a significant miscarriage of justice due to a final decision of the Supreme Court, could the court still correct it.
However, curative writs are sparingly used.
There are narrow, mostly procedural grounds that permit the filing of a curative writ.
A claim must be made that principles of natural justice were not followed — for example, that a party was not heard, or that a judge was biased, or had a conflict of interest. These petitions need to be approved by a senior advocate designated by the court.

Curative writs are filed mostly in death penalty cases:

The SC in the Yakub Memon case (2015) and the Delhi gang rape convicts case (2020) dismissed curative writs challenging death sentences.
In 2023, in the Bhopal gas tragedy case, the SC refused to exercise its curative powers to enhance the compensation provided to victims that was deemed grossly inadequate.

Key takeaways from the judgment:

The restoration of the 2019 position means that DMRC does not have to pay the arbitral award. About Rs 2,600 crore that DMRC had deposited with the High Court in an escrow account will be restored.